Readers' comments

"Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-partisan law firm that defends all forms of religious expression."
I wonder if how they would define "all forms of religious expression". Would non-Christian expressions be included in their definition of religion? I remember a family member talking about birth certificate of his son issued in UAE with religion stated as "none". The only recognized option was Islam!

First I would love to know who fills out these surveys ? I have been an avid reader of the Economist for 6 years now and have probably only made 15 comments total including the two I’ve made today. Surely no working American has time to fill out a research questionnaire. You can't fill them out at work and once you get home your tired. So to site one research study as justifiable is not good reporting in my opinion unless you are trying to gear the audience towards a certain way of thinking. Second to say “Catholics” are divided based on statistical comparisons between train of thought and “religious affiliation” and then recompile those statistic result and then include a race is not a very good practice. No I’m not Catholic but if you asked how many of the Catholics we’re practicing Catholics, not just go to mass, I’m almost certain your numbers would drop by half. Then remove those who are active in there local church because that’s how they grew up or because there parents are “true Catholics” (those who believe and try ardently to follow Catholic doctrine) and your numbers would dwindle to very few. Religion guides thought not vice versa; if it’s vice-versa then that’s called manipulation (as all religion is inspired and suppose to be delivered by God).

Basically what has happened in the US is that half of Catholics (and nearly the entire hierarchy) have decided to go the way of the Evangelical. The remaining Catholics are trying to steer along the old course or are leaving the religion altogether. I think the move towards Evangelism is regrettable because it leaves the US without a major religion that supports social justice.

This article missed the point entirely. It should be bemoaning the fact that a two party system can not hope to encompass every one's feelings. Instead it tries to mash a series of beliefs into one of two parties. The Economist could write this same article about almost every apolitical entity in the world. None of them would fit succinctly into paradigm of the two party system.
Like many Americans I identify with and abhor the practices of both parties. However improbable, it makes more sense to create more parties that better reflect the electorate base. For me this would include taking pieces from socially liberal and fiscally conservative ideologies. Or we can continue to write articles about a circle peg that won’t fit in a square hole.

Much I what I wanted to say has been said already... so I will just through in my two cents.

For a significant minority (maybe even a plurality) of Americans, organized religion plays either (1) no role in their political life or (2) a nominal role in their political life.

This is not to say that they are all heretics (or is it?). Take me for example, a 30 year old white male living in a fly-over state and a cradle Episcopalian. I grew up in the Church and still have respect for it... I love the liturgy, and always went to a Anglo-Catholic (high-Church) service.

But, I have completely separated politics from religion (as did my parents). I cannot stand it when the church becomes political. If you don't believe in abortions... don't get one. We live in a secular state, so go to church on Sunday (or whenever) but please don't conflate civic responsibility with religious dogma.

How the Catholic Church (and others such as the Southern Baptists, the "black church" and the Episcopal Church) remain political heavyweights in the 21st century is strange to me. I really don't get how people (smart, considerate, civic minded) continue to get up in arms over such things as Obamacare.

For example, birth control on health insurance plans. Obamacare does not mandate that every citizen take some form of contraception... thus "true" Catholics will have no need for it and will not purchase the drug from their pharmacists. So where is the problem? The problem (it seems to me) is that the Catholic Church doesn't want to have to pay for the sinful decisions of others. But all of the Catholic hospitals and Universities (such as the Jesuit institution I attended) have no problem accepting federal aid money, federal research grant money, or charging medicare and medicaid for billing purposes.

So, Religion should be about a desire to live a "godly" life. Catholicism and Anglicanism etc. can recommend the "right" path, encourage you to do XYZ, but they cannot force you to. You have to make those choices for yourself.

In my view the Episcopal Church no longer commands anywhere near the amount of power it used to command a century ago. It seems to be a highly liberal church with its acceptance of women and gay bishops and its indifference towards abortion. And liberalism and political power don't go hand-in-hand. A liberal church is less likely to issue diktats to its followers and its followers are also less likely to follow them.
So I would disagree with your comment that the Episcopal Church is a political heavyweight.

If you add the bills, Catholic charities and institutions to help the needy have given up a lot more than received in "federal grants" or others. But you hit the nail in the head, Catholics don't want to pay for questionable moral practices of others in matters of choice. That is not "forcing" their beliefs on anyone like you suggest, as they are still free to have them, but on the contrary they are supporting religious freedom. They are saying to the government, do not force us into giving up religious convictions on other's matters of choice by supporting them financially or otherwise.

Well... not in the same way. They are definitely not as powerful as they once were prior to the Civil War. But, Episcopalians are as numerous is the USA as Jews (i.e. not that many of them). Yet they hold a disproportionate amount of wealth. 18% of Jews are in the $1 million plus income bracket as are 12% of Episcopalians.

Despite their small numbers, the Episcopal Church has still garnered media attention for the very things you mention (such as becoming more and more liberal, gay bishops, and female priests etc.).

So, please don't think that I believe Episcopal Power=Catholic/Baptist Power. I don't, but it is a highly organized (and increasingly) political body (like Catholicism). And, as another poster pointed out, highly organized institutions are better at pushing political agendas.

So perhaps the best thing to say is this: Episcopalians have a disproportionate amount of wealth, power, and political power when compared to their small size.

Your point is well taken. That is why this is such a vexing issue. Catholic institutions do so much good... but because they enter into the marketplace of hospitals and education (and helping the general public) they naturally become entangled in the leviathan. It is then, that they jump back and say "we cannot do this because of our faith." One may suggest that their services are too essential to be fettered by religious hangups (to put it bluntly).

You are correct that the Episcopal Church is politically less significant than "a century ago." However, your history needs updating.

A century ago the Episcopal Church was not politically especially liberal. If anything, it was a tad on the conservative side. As late as the 1950s it was the a popular destination for the wealthy or privileged.

It became liberal starting in the early 1960s (Bishop Pike?) As a result, it became the darling of the Left but its membership stagnated (and stagnates.) At the moment it is riven both in American and abroad over female ordination and gay clergy. The African communions have largely rebelled against leadership coming out of Canterbury.

As a general rule, churches lose political clout as they become politically liberal. The wan status of the UCC, Presbyterian Church (USA) and, yes, the Episcopalians illustrate that rule.

Those that are politically powerful -- Baptists, Mormons, Catholics -- are conservative.

Yes that is true. The Episcopalians do have disproportionate wealth and power in comparison to their numbers but that is not the same as the Church having power. The people who constitute the Church are powerful but the Church itself isn't powerful. This is because the Episcopalians tend to be more liberal than most other church-goers and so they are less likely to exercise their power along religious lines.
As to the question of it being highly organized, that is more a consequence of its history. It is one of the oldest Churches in the United States and it was very well established in the early years of the country. So it would be highly organized.

The article lucidly limns how American Catholics long ago ceased to be a voting bloc and scattered, instead, into the multiverse of American political opinion. The old New Deal coalition had Catholics as a prime component, along with unions and immigrants, but that was eighty years ago and Catholics long since have mainstreamed from their Old World ethnic roots and priestly obedience.

Let's skip jejune discussion about how "religions don't have the right to tell us what to do." Religious leaders have the same right to try and persuade and convince as anyone else. Maybe you thought you learned something different in high school civics but you were misinformed.

The Good Sisters, I mean the ones on the bus, are an altogether different issue. Public opinion seems entirely with them and against what it perceives to be a mysoginist male hierarchy given to pedophilia. The cheery sisters, by way of contrast, can tap into a pulsating vein of feminism that courses throughout American life today to draw strength. They are so much the underdog that Americans cannot help themselves for rooting for these nuns, even if those doing the rooting are not Catholic themselves. But, there is more to the story.

The Catholic hierarchy has been criminal -- literally, criminal -- in covering up sexual abuse of minors. It is a slow learner and only mounting financial judgments against it seem likely to make it do what conscience would seem to dictate -- protect the young. But, the church does not so much have a pedophilia problem as a gay problem. Ironically, although castigated as being homophobic, the church genially welcomed gays into the clergy so long as they were celibate. That was a mistake. The child abuse problem has not stemmed from the Reverend Rake seducing females. It stems almost entirely from gay adult men having illegal sexual involvement with underage males. Few gays are child molesters just as few heterosexuals are child molesters. But, those few have done so much damage that, remiss as it has been, the hierarchy cannot be blamed for seeming chary of modern sexual culture.

As for the nuns, much as we admire "feisty women" who "stand up" to men, the church sees itself as bearing the message of redemption through Christ. Everything else is supposed to be subordinate to that -- and "everything" includes the nuns. Militant feminism has permeated many of the orders and to the hierarchy this looks a lot like a rival set of beliefs pushing out the Gospel. Then, too, the hierarchy tries to construct a political and economic agenda consistent with its understanding of the Gospel. Looked at from the outside, it may seem to be doing a poor job of it. But, confronted with a society as militantly hostile to its teachings as this one seems to be, it does not need snipers in nuns' habits shooting at the ranks from behind.

Individual Catholics are understandably distraught and ashamed at the criminality in their church. But, that same church is trying very hard to present a minority report on ethnics and morals different from what modern liberal opinion likes to hear. That the messenger is dissolute and even criminal does not mean the message is false. It means the messenger needs a good talking to and a kick in the pants.

Catholics, meanwhile, will vote their pocketbooks and consciences like everyone else. Those who fear "Catholic power" can relax . . . it doesn't amount to very much anymore. What is said in the pulpit is no longer heard in the pews.

The nuns are part of the Catholic church that managed to widely avoid the entire mess of the past decade, largely because they either spend most of their time praying or doing good deeds. Also, since their authority over the faithful is so limited they don't really have much ability to abuse their authority. And yet ironically they still are actually pushed away from power. Such a wonderful way to convince women to become Catholic.

Basically, religions remain free to tell their followers how they should live, but they are not free to coerce them to live a certain way, nor are they free to enlist the government to reduce their followers' access to LEGAL things that are declared contrary to doctrine.

The abortion debate and now the contraception debates are about religion USING the government to enforce religious doctrine. All Americans should reject this intrusion on our liberty.

The reason, @drewskin, that your slavery analogy doesn't follow @guest-wsaooje's logic at all, is that his/her logical argument is in the form of, "if something is LEGAL, it does not necessarily follow that you MUST do it." Slavery isn't legal.

Churches are not enlisting the government to reduce adherent's access to anything. You've turned the situation on its head and set up a straw man.

The government is forcing churches to pay for something that is against their religious teachings. This is not about the Catholic church or the contraception issue specifically. This is about the government attempting to coerce religious organizations into acting directly against their teachings.

I find this whole debate fascinating and a bit horrifying because I cannot understand why anyone would defend this blatant violation of a fundamental liberty. "Sure, you're allowed to exercise your religion. You just have to do it how and where I say."

About the only thing you have right is that it is about religious freedom. Forcing somebody else to pay for others questionably moral practices in matters of choice is interfering with their religious freedom. The government is in fact imposing on the church religious freedom no to support such practices financially or otherwise. People could still have them, just not on the church's dime.

What if paying taxes is against my religion? Can I be excused from doing that then? Or if I don't believe in speed limits...shall there be an exception made for me then the next time I max out my car on the highway?
I'm free to make up my own religion, after all. No need to follow one which others made up for me, so I can set the rules.
If you live in a democratic country you're going to have to face the fact that everybody is equal and the laws apply equally to everyone. Separation of church and state. If something that the state approves of goes against your religion, tough luck. One rule for all is the only thing that works.

Supercilious sophisticate.
The democrats' (small d) view is that it is in the pubic interest that condoms be available to all, and thus that all should contribute to their purchase.
This is the same logic that gave you Social Security, Public Schools, Police Forces, Standing Armies, et cetera.
The Republican view is: You can do what you want, but you get no help from me other than agreement to your right to do what you want--as long as you don't organise and take control of your own lives. (Cf., Mr. Scrooge)

Dr. Kick,
It is also in the public interest to force high IQ women to reproduce with low IQ men (and the reverse) in order to reduce income inequality. Just curious...how far are you control freek liberal progressive democrats willing to go for "the commom good"??

Never before have I seen condoms placed alongside the army, police and public school system as being of similar core responsibility for government. Are you saying the right gets the army in exchange for democrats providing condoms?? Your logic is slightly odd may I say!

What childishness! What fear!
The logic is simple: Unrestrained capitalism is quite harmful. The evidence is very clear.
The citizens of Baseball accept regulation/controls, why are you so frightened of regulations?
You provide a perfect example of the mentality of fear that was inculcated into American society by those behind Sen. McCarthy.

Dr Kick,
Only 10% of the participants on the baseball field are referees.
In the United States combined federal, state, and local government spending is equal to 42% of GDP.
If you left wing liberal progressive democrats were in charge of baseball, I do indeed suspect that referees would represent almost half of the folks out on the field.

You confirm the concept of childishness.
The sport of baseball has many regulators--they are not all on the field; many are in owners' boxes, councils of senior umps, etc. And that is not counting the lawyers, etc., who regulate the business of baseball, much less individual games.
Baseball is much more democratic (thanks to Curt Flood) than you would wish it to be.

You know what Dr. Kick..you are correct!! I thought about it and you are correct gosh darn it!! What we need in America is a working to regulating ratio of 1:5. We need five regulators for every one working stiff. You are right !! I will vote for Obama this November...I will !!!

Children go on pouting...
And make exaggerated claims...
Work is work is work. Whether on the production line, in the market, or as part of the referee system that helps us, in our rush to earn a living, to best 'do unto others'.
What you should be looking at is what economists call the "dependency ratio". It is increasing in the US, and most of that increase is traceable to the reduced regulation of the past three decades (under both GOP and Democratic Congresses/Presidents-but mostly under the GOP).
If you really want to read something written by what you call a liberal, read Richard D. Wolff's analyses.
Regarding your childish name calling: My perspective derives from living and working in a dozen different nations (and eight US states)--and with indigenous peoples too. You conflate toleration with what you call liberalism. I find it amazing that a generally liberal magazine like The Economist attracts your subscription.

I dont understands why churches and religious persons are so interested in deciding other peoples life. If abortions are legal doesn't mean you have to get one if it is against your religion then don't. If gay marriage is legal doesn't mean you have to be in one if it's against your religion then don't. Just because alcohol is legal doesn't mean you have to consume it if it is against your religion then don't and so on. When it comes to the exception that religious institution have on birth control I don't get it. If they really are religious then they won't use birthcontrols anyway so what's the problem about letting it be in their healthcare package?

@ned26
Religious institution are tax exemt. But if there is a fire the fire brigade will show up. If there is a break-in the police will investigate it. They use the infrastructure like everybody else but they dont pay for it, which is insane. Why should everybody else pay for them? I dont care about other peoples religions and you can eat/dont eat, wear/dont wear, drink/dont drink what ever you want for what ever reason, that is not my buissness but dont force others to do it and pay your fare share like everybody else.

The reason why devout Catholics can't just sit by and allow abortion to exist is because they truly believe it is homoside. That's really the issue. if you beive the fetus is a fullk human person, then its pretty hard to say "I won't kill it, but you can kill it if you want." The status of the fetus is essential to the issue. Gay Marriage is a little different, but those who believe in marriage as being between a man and a woman believe that it is something unique and special so as to be recognized and supported by the state. By recognizing same sex unions as marriage with full equality, this takes away from the uniquness of traditional marriage. And that is the very point on both side of the issue. One side says the sex of the parties is not essential to the status of the union and, therefore, there should be equality. The other side says sex is essential to the status of the unin and by equalizing same sex ubins the state is devaluing traditional marriage. And that is enough to motivate many to political action. Note that the Catholic hierarchy does not say the state can't recognize and confer the vast majority of marriage benefits on ame sex civil unions.

There is very little theology that gives the status of human being to a fetus. If there were, the Catholic Church would find more support for its stand amongst other faiths. And other churches would not find contraception so acceptable.

The Bible says that humanity should go forth and multiply--but it is human arrogance that assumes that that multiplication is only of the human species rather than (say) a multiplication of all human abilities, not just procreation--or (recalling the ineffability of God) even some other meaning. [As David Brin shows in his Uplift novels--and as "Planet of the Apes" prompted--one way of multiplying might involve helping other species.]

I can see that abortion is a sin; but it is a very personal sin--one between a sinner and her confessor (and often her partner and his confessor). It is a sin that has very little public impact, and that impact has been found to be positive: Studies have shown that abortion rates drop in States where it is legal compared to States where it is illegal. And maternal deaths from botched illegal pregnancies drop to zero.

Abortion's harmful impact on society at large comes about when a church finds it important to attend only to such very personal sins in its public presentations, while at the same time it totally ignores the much more harmful and very public sins of lies, murder, theft, etc. By focusing on very personal sin, a church avoids its primary mission to address those sins that hurt the public the most. And in doing so, it aids and abets those who harm this planet and its people through such sin.

It is such public sins that allow excessive greed to destroy our environment, that tolerate the lies of bankers, brokers, politicians, etc., and that tolerate the inequity and deaths that result from those lies, thefts and destruction. And they even underlay many of the situations that make individuals think there is no option but abortion.

I'm not saying that one should ignore abortion; I'm saying that it is not something that belongs to the public. Solve the problem, treat the symptom.

@Drewskin:
You are setting up a straw man argument. Slavery is illegal in every civilized country for a number of reasons. Use of a prophylactic hurts no one and is perfectly legal. Two gay males deciding to marry does not cause physical or mental harm to anyone. Its not a crime, no matter how distasteful some people may find it.

The church trying to control legislation to support their own doctrine and control their own flock is an entirely different (and serious) issue... I agree with Drewskin on all his points, especially the one pertaining to taxation.

I worry when the Catholic Church (or any other church that believes in free will) works to deny its members the exercise of their own free will. That is what the Church does when it insists that it not be required to take the standard package for health insurance. That is also what it does when it sanctions elected officials who are its members and acting on behalf of a whole society, not just one church.

Why do I feel sorry? Because the core mission of the Church is pretty decent: Helping people to find ways to put Jesus' Great Commandment into practice in life, and especially in life's many gray areas. That mission gets lost too often in the human failings that lead to more attention being paid to the Church as an organisation than to its mission.

Sorry for the technical distinction, but Dr. your conflating "free will" and "free choice." Free will (as opposed to determinism in its many forms) deals with whether an individual is capable of moral responsibiulity in some sence (which the church teaches). What you are taliking aboult is why the church says some things should not be chosen or that an employer should not be required to present them as an option. It is not inconsistent to hold that people are capable of making choices with moral responsibility and at the same time that certain things should not be chosen.

It seems to me that you are conflating things.
This has nothing to do with capabilities for making choices and everything to do with the right and responsibility to make choices.
If one has free will, it it wrong for one's church to limit that will--to limit her/his choices.
The best defense against 'sin' is the same defenses one finds in science and democracy: the freedom to follow one's inclinations (to do)--and doing involves choosing.

"If one has free will, it it wrong for one's church to limit that will--to limit her/his choices."

Not sure what you really meant to say but moral teaching is all about how we should refrain from choosing certain things and how we ought to choose certain things. That we choose freely does not mean the Church, or anyone else, can't say "your wrong and I/we will not support that choice." Do you really mean to say that the Church is not allowed to have an opinion and is not allowed to act in accordance with that opinion with regard to its members and institutions?"

Fair question.
A church has pedagogical rights, not absolute rights.
Whether a member always adheres to a church's teachings is, given free will, up to that member.
A church should not assume a paternalistic attitude by telling Caesar that Caesar must not allow that church's members to use one of Caesar's programs, policies, etc.
Such use (or non-use) should be up to the member. Else where is the need for the Sacrament of Reconciliation?
That is much the same as when children become adults: Their parents still provide guidance, but otherwise have no formal controls.

as a 26 year old male white catholic i can say that i have two reasons for not voting for barack obama this fall.

1. his party is obsessed with persecuting the church. the left has always had a tradition of anti clericalism. Not giving religious exemptions for things like gay adoption to catholic orphanages is insane. All the catholic orphanages and adoption agencies in Massachusetts where shut down by the democratic party. insane. the made up priest abuse scandal (statistically the catholic church is the safest place for children in the world) has been engineered by the democratic party by passing senate bills ghost written by lawyers which have bankrupted diocese and ruin their reputation. Even if your institution is the best in the world their are still going to be thousands of cases of abuse. Until the democrats in americas state senates stop passing senate bills against dioceses i will not vote for a democrat .

2. i went to school my whole life in government factories. why couldn't i go to a catholic school instead. they are far better and far cheaper. this is the democratic parties fault too. I am sick of seeing people like barack obama who went to pretty boy private schools his whole life tell me that i must be forced to go to the public school system. i am sick of this policy of obamas bankrupting my church by making my beloved fellow parishioners pay twice for theirs kids schooling (pay once for private school tuition to go to catholic school and then pay again to go to public schools that they are never going to use).

The Catholic Church deliberately covered up the paedophilia of its priests - this is proven fact, and has been admitted by them, hence the huge payouts to the victims. And it isn't an America-only problem, the child rape in catholic orphanages in Ireland and other places were endemic. The victims were threatened and bullied, and the perpetrators protected. They care more about the reputation of the church than the well being of their flock. If you bothered to find out what it's all about, you would leave your church instantly if you had any humanity.

The simple fact is that the catholic church is a highly centralized, authoritarian and patriarchal organization, and like all highly centralized, authoritarian and patriarchal organizations, it is highly corrupt and abusive. That is why catholic countries are so backward and corrupt relative to protestant ones.

You guys both miss the point. It is like you see the trees, but not the forest.
The forest is that religions still function as if it were the 15th Century. All the population growth, scientific and geographical discoveries, etc., might as well not have happened.
Religions tend to care more about their organisation (Catholic, Methodist, Anglican/Episcopalian, Born-again, etc.) than they do about their mission of helping us poor sods to live decently (that is, to follow the Great Commandment) in a world that is too often indecent.
This is what led bishops to try to hide pedophiles (a problem I first read about 30 years ago from Andrew Greeley). It leads many churches to shun their members who associate with people of other faiths. It leads many churches to seek favor from governments, even.
If you want churches to focus on their mission, you will have to help them to see that it is more important than their organisation. Development is overcoming fear. As we quit using organisations for shelter we overcome our fears.

Well written Ned26. I am a 39 year old Catholic and prefer the traditional Latin Mass as said by the FSSP. In San Diego more than 1/2 of the abuse accusations were made against dead men by people on false claims of disability or some other lackluster attempt to drain the chest of Caesar, while Casesar uses them to destroy the Church. It is really actually quite sad - it is very much the way of The Divine Comedy. These nuns should be excommunicated.

You are missing a lot of the facts of the Massachusetts case. In fact Catholic agencies in the state had placed children with gay couples; it was the vatican that came down on the local groups, tried to get the anti-discrimination laws changed and failed (coincidentally, Mitt Romney was the one who told them tough luck). The church initiated the demise of Catholic adoption agencies in Mass, not the democrats. You also clearly have no grasp of either the facts involving the church abuse scandals, the role of the president in state-level prosecutions (hint - it's between zero and 0), or how taxes and taxation work. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama, but everything you've listed is pure and utter nonsense.

As a victim of one of your priests from hell, I received no money nor would I accept money, false apology or anything else from the church. As soon as I reached the age of 18, and could not be required by my parents to participate in it, I terminated all contact with that inhumane and unregenerate organization.

There may be people trying to shake down the church, but that doesn't mean all or even most are telling lies or looking for a profit [any more than that all priests are rapists or pederasts]. The Vatican immorally accuses the victims and the American press while continuing the cover-ups and by refusing to address the fundamental causes.

THIS is the organization that claims the President of the U.S. is persecuting Catholics. It is people like me, and like rape victims denied release from the consequences of criminal assault, who are persecuted by the Catholic Church.

You are completely wrong on both points. I mean COMPLETELY WRONG. So what are your real reasons for voting for Romney?

Also as former Catholic I can tell you birth control is not part of the catholic religion, it is papal dictum and has nothing to do with Christianity. You do know the difference right? It's like eating meat on Fridays, once it was a sin, now it isn't - meaning that it never was and was never tied to the religion. But, if you hate having to think for yourself, then feel free to continue on, following orders.

"i am sick of this policy of obamas bankrupting my church by making my beloved fellow parishioners pay twice for theirs kids schooling (pay once for private school tuition to go to catholic school and then pay again to go to public schools that they are never going to use)."

Since when did Obama become responsible for school districts levying taxes on property owners that have children in private schools? Is that something that Rush or Beck told you? Clearly your knowledge of state and local government is lacking.

As for "the made up priest abuse scandal," clearly you have a screw loose. Please go see a doctor for treatment.

Will you please educate yourself about how the government works? Just look it up on wikipedia or something - a passing familiarity would be an immense improvement. Obama's opinions on school vouchers and tax credits matter not, because these are local and state issues over which he has no say. If you have an issue with vouchers and tax credits, take it up with your governor.

There is a pretty clean and easy solution to this problem. Left leaning Catholics can just become Anglicans and right leaning Anglicans can become Catholics. Nobody really has to change anything and everyone will be happier at the end of it. People like me can still visit the Vatican and see the Sistine chapel, and hey Canterbury becomes a new destination for tens of millions of new people.

I don't need any credit or compensation. Rowan Williams (did they elect someone new yet; we might want to rethink this whole Prime Minister gets a vote thing)and Pope Benedict can just put in a good word for me with St. Peter.

I can lean left and see the Anglican Communion as a cash cow that sustains itself because the Queen is the head of it.
I can lean right and see the Vatican also so tightly wound to the things of this world (Vatican Bank included) that they cannot clearly see that their mission is affected by that winding.
I cannot lean towards the Eastern Orthodox because they yet hunger for the political power of Byzantium.
Perhaps something like a "Declan Walsh" is what is needed. I certainly see no J23 or JP1 on the horizon.